Methods for determining specific movements of a body that use a variety of devices, apparatus and systems are, generally speaking, known. The term “body” is defined broadly hereafter and includes both organic and inorganic objects.
In point of fact, many methods are known for sensing body movement, or non-movement (i.e., sensed dynamic accelerations, including cessation of movement), as well as, for sensing body movement over time, which is commonly used to determine comparative levels of activity of a monitored body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,110,741, 4,292,630, 5,045,839, and 5,523,742). These methodologies, however, merely report various levels of body activity, and, simply stated, fail to recognize possible causes for any increased or decreased level of body activity.
In contrast, other methodologies have developed over time for the detection of falls (See also, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,829,285, 5,477,211, 5,554,975, and 5,751,214). These methodologies are largely based upon the utilization of one or more mechanical switches (e.g., mercury switches) that determine when a body has attained a horizontal position. These methods however fail to discern “normal,” or acceptable, changes in levels of body activity. Stated another way, the foregoing fall detection methodologies provide no position change analysis and, therefore, cannot determine whether a change in position, once attained, is acceptable or unacceptable.
Various training methods have been conceived for sensing relative tilt of a body (See, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,300,921 and 5,430,435), and some such methodologies have employed two-axis accelerometers. The output of these devices, however, have reported only static acceleration of the body (i.e., the position of a body relative to earth within broad limits). It should be appreciated that static acceleration, or gravity, is not the same as a lack of dynamic acceleration (i.e., vibration, body movement, and the like), but is instead a gauge of position. While accelerometers that measure both static and dynamic acceleration are known, their primary use has heretofore been substantially confined to applications directed to measuring one or the other, but not both.
Thus, it may be seen that the various conventional detectors fall into one of two varieties, those that gauge movement of the body and those that gauge a body's position by various means, with neither type capable of evaluating body movement to determine whether the same is normal or abnormal; and if abnormal, whether such movement is so abnormal to be beyond tolerance, for instance, to be damaging, destructive, crippling, harmful, injurious, or otherwise alarming or, possibly, distressing to the body. None of the methodologies heretofore known have provided a suitable means to evaluate body movement over time and to determine whether such movement is tolerable. Further improvement could thus be utilized.
The general use of communication devices has greatly increased over the last few years. Communication devices comprise cellular telephones, personal digital assistants, hand held computers, laptops, computers, wireless Internet access devices, and other similar types of communications equipment. The number of such communication devices in use is steadily increasing.
It would be very useful to have a communications device that is capable of evaluating movement of a body relative to an environment. For example, when a communications device detects a body movement that signifies the occurrence of a potentially dangerous event (e.g., a fall), the communication device can immediately send an alarm to call for assistance.